New 182 better than a type r

[weaver]

I have to say yes. Got my 182 last week after selling my 04 type r and have already done about 1000 miles and i love it. The interior quality is much higher than that of my civic. The plastics on the inside are much better and the gadgets make a lot of difference to some one who spents a lot of time in the car. The gear box isnt as good but the money left over in my pocket and the extra comfort sure make up for. Dont get me wrong the civic is an amazing cars and one of the wildest i have ever driven, but the clio just loves the corners and makes me feel happy. so in my opinion the clio for me edges it.

No doubt different people like different things but for me it has to be the clio.

Lets hope the next breed of renault sport and civic type r produce two more awesome cars that can arouse so much debate.

 

[CDMullins]

Civic 4 me!!!!

Just love the look, not fortunate enuff to have driven any but the civics my (realistic) dream car!

 

[benji&eka]

erm......

the cvik must be a proper bread van if -quote

interior quality is much higher than that of my civic. The plastics on the inside are much better and the gadgets make a lot of ..... ect

i use a sprinter van for work with better interior trim than my 172!

......as for the rest, having driven both, the cvik good but lacks something, basically its prick proof. and the clio is good if you want to unplug your brain and arrive with a smile!

 

[Turkish]

"best" is subjective. both very good cars verry similar performance but delivered in a different way. ive driven a CTR on a regular basis so i have some idea what im talking about too

 

[Paul_P1]

Quote: Originally posted by benji&eka on 02 June 2005


erm......

the cvik must be a proper bread van if -quote

interior quality is much higher than that of my civic. The plastics on the inside are much better and the gadgets make a lot of ..... ect

i use a sprinter van for work with better interior trim than my 172!

......as for the rest, having driven both, the cvik good but lacks something, basically its prick proof. and the clio is good if you want to unplug your brain and arrive with a smile!

The interior quality in the MK1 172 is no where as good as the MK2, the Civics plastics are cheap looking.

 

[Toypop]

The Civics do actually look a bit dodgy inside, in particular the insides of the doors look really cheap.

Id still buy the Civic if both cars were the same price but this interior materials issue is over played and over exaggerated.

 

[Munson]

Agreed, the Civic isnt much better trimmed than the Clio, but it does cost more and has less toys. Still a better car though, even if the Clio is as quick and is more fun.

 

[EK05YTO]

182 is best. i own one for starters

 

[Dan##]

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 02 June 2005
so i have some idea what im talking about too

thats a first!

 

[Turkish]

*rolls eyes at the frenchman*

shouldnt you be building sandcastles or something ?

 

[markCTR]

Ah the age old battle still rages on! Geordiepaul and I used to have some good old discussions at work about this one. He had a 172 and I had CTR, how times have changed.

As an ex owner of both a CTR and recently an STI and Now a 172. I think am rightly placed to put my ten penth in.

Interior quality.

Build no comparison, the plastics are better, build quality is far superior and the seats are great and as for the driving position its spot on. Just cant get used to the size of the clio steering wheel, way to big. Do like all of the toy in the clio though! the CTR is the wrong car if you like toys.

Driving.

Both have put huge grins on my face, the CTR is wild and it feels like you have had your head kicked in when you have driven it. The drive train is also far superior, the gearbox is one of the best in existense. Going around corners there isnt a great deal in it if anything. Straight line speed the civic blows the 172 away, but thats not what the clio is about.

At the end of the day they are both performance icons, you pay yor money you takes your choice. At the moment the 172 is putting huge grins on my face as the CTR did and thats all that matters. Put it this way I would rather have the CTR or the Clio anyday over the scooby!

 

[Toypop]

Did the CTR really blow the 172 away in a straight line? Only I find my mates 45k CTR is level with my 5k 182 all the way but I havent raced a 172 so I dunno how quick they are. Many 172 owners find the 182 slow though when going from a run-in 172 to a tight new 182.

That doesnt make sense.

 

[Ally]

Quote: Originally posted by Toypop on 02 June 2005


The Civics do actually look a bit dodgy inside, in particular the insides of the doors look really cheap.

Id still buy the Civic if both cars were the same price but this interior materials issue is over played and over exaggerated.

Me too. When I got my 172 I just couldnt justify the extra a CTR was going to cost (£11.2k brand new 172; £15k 18month old CTR). Theyre both excellent cars IMO but for me, value for money makes the Clio the winner.

[Edited by Ally on 03 June 2005 at 8:41am]

Sorry, forgot to add that Id rate the 182 above the CTR too, purely on VFM - theres just nothing between them IMO.

 

[blink172]

Having driven both, i felt more a part of the clio than just along for the ride of the CTR. Both were excellent test drives, with the dealers advising me to try them out under what i would call normal use. Both went well, both handled brilliantly, but the clio felt more involving.

 

[Funkyjahooner]

A friend of mine has a Vts then changed to a Skoda Octavia Vrs.At that time i had a Vts and he swore that from ownership experience his Vrs would blow a Vts away.

We got it on and he was suprised,there was chuff all in it.

Its deceptive sometimes trying to judge cars performance from ownership memories...

 

[Toypop]

I remember when I went in a CTR for the first time. I drove to the pub in my 182 to meet my mate who had just bought one.

I got in the passenger side and he pulled out onto the ring road and floored it.

For some reason I was expecting it to go like a rocket as I had heard so much about them but actually it felt really slow. He had just got the car and was grinning from ear to ear and saying wow do you feel that surge when the VTEC kicks in. I actually thought it was slower than my 182. We pulled over and swapped sides and I drove it. Again it still felt slower than my 182 as it didnt seem to have as big a kick.

I think because he had just got the car he wasnt used to the performance. I then let him drive mine and he enjoyed it as much as his CTR but again to me it just felt normal and not really that quick.

We went out later in our own cars and we were side by side with nothing in it so obviously the performance was the same but its strange how your perceptions can be different from reality.

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by markCTR on 03 June 2005


Ah the age old battle still rages on! Geordiepaul and I used to have some good old discussions at work about this one. He had a 172 and I had CTR, how times have changed.

As an ex owner of both a CTR and recently an STI and Now a 172. I think am rightly placed to put my ten penth in.

Interior quality.

Build no comparison, the plastics are better, build quality is far superior and the seats are great and as for the driving position its spot on. Just cant get used to the size of the clio steering wheel, way to big. Do like all of the toy in the clio though! the CTR is the wrong car if you like toys.

TBH yes the seats/position/steering wheel size are far better but the plastics in particular on the door cards i felt actually looked cheaper than the 172/182. mechanically the CTR felt alot more robust but the paintwork was sh*t in as much as you only had to look at it for it to chip.

Driving.

Both have put huge grins on my face, the CTR is wild and it feels like you have had your head kicked in when you have driven it. The drive train is also far superior, the gearbox is one of the best in existense. Going around corners there isnt a great deal in it if anything. Straight line speed the civic blows the 172 away, but thats not what the clio is about.

The CTR corners alot flatter than a 172/182 as standard however the ride on poor surfaces is worse to the point of being almost jarring and very waring. The gearbox on the CTR is superb i cant fault it and the engine is great too however the way it delivers the power isnt as accessible as a 17/82. You really have to thrash the living sh*t out of the CTR to get the best out of it and there is a very narrow band in the rev range that you are getting the best out of it meaning some lesser drivers will get caught out all day every day just by being in the wrong gear. In a straight line fight there is nothing in it, from personal experience driving my dads old CTR and testing it (on my own track) against a mates CTR you cant split the two. The clio has more responsive steering with better feedback IMO and is happier changing direction than the CTR.

At the end of the day they are both performance icons, you pay yor money you takes your choice. At the moment the 172 is putting huge grins on my face as the CTR did and thats all that matters. Put it this way I would rather have the CTR or the Clio anyday over the scooby!

Both Great cars that are very even but a very different drive and package. I think this is why they tend to polorise peoples opinions but i can see the good and bad in both and would be happy owning either.

 

[Phill1978]

a tight 182 will be left by a 172 run in. you need to give it some beans from day 1 in the 182 imo. the 182 is lighter than the 172 and has more power so it is quite a bit faster than a 172... hence the reason why it can keep pace with a CTR upto 130-135.